Just had his father on the line, blaming the whole thing on me.
"You're not allowed to ride between the traffic!"
"Actually, yes, I am."
"No, you're not."
"It was utterly stationary as the police had closed the motorway. Yes, I am."
"No you're not."
"Yes, I am. Your son is not allowed to get out of his car on the M25."
"He can get out of his car if he wants to."
"No..." (etc etc etc).
Anyway, turns out that yes, the address Twatty gave is indeed vacant because he'd moved out a while back. I have no idea what his current address is, and his Dad isn't about to give it. Dad just says car was insured to that address, and son is covered. We shall see.
"And I don't want you writing to him and hassling him..."
"I wrote to him because the phone number he gave was false."
(Pause)
"Well, I'm sure that was an accident."
It'll be interesting to see what the inscos make of it all. Dad says Twatty has reported it to his insurers - good news, if so, because it means he may be covered. I'm adamant that I am allowed to ride between completely stationary traffic, and that you aren't allowed to get out of your car and go walkabout on the M25 just because you feel like it.
Isn't there also an offence covering careless opening of car doors? Any TrafPol bods here?
BMW mirror and pannier bracket replaced now, and bike back in service.
On Jul 9, 10:48 am, boots <bo...@despammed.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 02:06:07 -0700 (PDT) in uk.rec.motorcycles, > TOG@Toil says:
> >Anyway, turns out that yes, the address Twatty gave is indeed vacant > >because he'd moved out a while back. I have no idea what his current > >address is, and his Dad isn't about to give it. Dad just says car was > >insured to that address, and son is covered. We shall see.
> Personally I'd go straight to the police at this point. He's > deliberately given false information at the scene of an accident, the > phone could be a mistake/an error in transcription. Giving the wrong > address, there's no defence.
This is the correct course of action, in theory.
In practice (and IME in a similar situation) the police will singularly fail to give even an iota of a shit about it.
>> >Anyway, turns out that yes, the address Twatty gave is indeed vacant >> >because he'd moved out a while back. I have no idea what his current >> >address is, and his Dad isn't about to give it. Dad just says car was >> >insured to that address, and son is covered. We shall see.
>> Personally I'd go straight to the police at this point. He's >> deliberately given false information at the scene of an accident, the >> phone could be a mistake/an error in transcription. Giving the wrong >> address, there's no defence.
>This is the correct course of action, in theory.
>In practice (and IME in a similar situation) the police will >singularly fail to give even an iota of a shit about it.
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 02:06:07 -0700 (PDT) in uk.rec.motorcycles, > TOG@Toil says:
> >Anyway, turns out that yes, the address Twatty gave is indeed vacant > >because he'd moved out a while back. I have no idea what his current > >address is, and his Dad isn't about to give it. Dad just says car was > >insured to that address, and son is covered. We shall see.
> Personally I'd go straight to the police at this point. He's > deliberately given false information at the scene of an accident, the > phone could be a mistake/an error in transcription. Giving the wrong > address, there's no defence. >This is the correct course of action, in theory. >In practice (and IME in a similar situation) the police will >singularly fail to give even an iota of a shit about it.
On Jul 9, 10:11 am, "Krusty" <dontwant...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> TOG@Toil wrote: > > Anyway, turns out that yes, the address Twatty gave is indeed vacant > > because he'd moved out a while back. I have no idea what his current > > address is, and his Dad isn't about to give it. Dad just says car was > > insured to that address, and son is covered. We shall see.
> He probably won't have informed the DVLA of his change of address then, > which I believe is an offence. His insurance may also be invalidated as > he hasn't informed them.
DVLA website only states that you must inform them of changes of address but I'm also pretty positive that it is an offence and the rules were supposedly being tighened up recently.
> >> >Anyway, turns out that yes, the address Twatty gave is indeed vacant > >> >because he'd moved out a while back. I have no idea what his current > >> >address is, and his Dad isn't about to give it. Dad just says car was > >> >insured to that address, and son is covered. We shall see.
> >> Personally I'd go straight to the police at this point. He's > >> deliberately given false information at the scene of an accident, the > >> phone could be a mistake/an error in transcription. Giving the wrong > >> address, there's no defence.
> >This is the correct course of action, in theory.
> >In practice (and IME in a similar situation) the police will > >singularly fail to give even an iota of a shit about it.
> That's shit, but I guess not unexpected, hard to claim the OP was > speeding.
when I was knocked off my (subsequently written-off) Bandit 1200, the driver of the car gave a false address, and also turned out to be uninsured - the police couldn't have cared less.
>>It'll be interesting to see what the inscos make of it all. Dad says >>Twatty has reported it to his insurers - good news, if so, because it >>means he may be covered. I'm adamant that I am allowed to ride between >>completely stationary traffic, and that you aren't allowed to get out >>of your car and go walkabout on the M25 just because you feel like it.
>>Isn't there also an offence covering careless opening of car doors? >>Any TrafPol bods here?
>123 >The Driver and the Environment. You MUST NOT leave a parked vehicle >unattended with the engine running or leave a vehicle engine running >unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on a public road.
>I'm sure there's one about letting passengers open their doors into >the flow of traffic but I can't find it.
A quote from the introduction of the HC. It's advice, not law. Some advice is based on law but usually the code itself is not enforcable.
"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."
-- His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI Bishop of Rome Vicar of Jesus Christ Successor of the Prince of the Apostles Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church Primate of Italy Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City Servant of the Servants of God
> 123 > The Driver and the Environment. You MUST NOT leave a parked vehicle > unattended with the engine running or leave a vehicle engine running > unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on a public road.
> I'm sure there's one about letting passengers open their doors into > the flow of traffic but I can't find it.
Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible. If you have to stop on the roadside
* do not park facing against the traffic flow * stop as close as you can to the side
Check before opening your door
* do not stop too close to a vehicle displaying a Blue Badge: remember, the occupant may need more room to get in or out * you MUST switch off the engine, headlights and fog lights * you MUST apply the handbrake before leaving the vehicle * you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. * Check for cyclists or other traffic * it is safer for your passengers (especially children) to get out of the vehicle on the side next to the kerb * put all valuables out of sight and make sure your vehicle is secure * lock your vehicle
On 9 July, 10:48, boots <bo...@despammed.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 02:06:07 -0700 (PDT) in uk.rec.motorcycles, > TOG@Toil says:
> >Anyway, turns out that yes, the address Twatty gave is indeed vacant > >because he'd moved out a while back. I have no idea what his current > >address is, and his Dad isn't about to give it. Dad just says car was > >insured to that address, and son is covered. We shall see.
> Personally I'd go straight to the police at this point. He's > deliberately given false information at the scene of an accident, the > phone could be a mistake/an error in transcription. Giving the wrong > address, there's no defence.
> >> >Anyway, turns out that yes, the address Twatty gave is indeed vacant > >> >because he'd moved out a while back. I have no idea what his current > >> >address is, and his Dad isn't about to give it. Dad just says car was > >> >insured to that address, and son is covered. We shall see.
> >> Personally I'd go straight to the police at this point. He's > >> deliberately given false information at the scene of an accident, the > >> phone could be a mistake/an error in transcription. Giving the wrong > >> address, there's no defence.
> >This is the correct course of action, in theory.
> >In practice (and IME in a similar situation) the police will > >singularly fail to give even an iota of a shit about it.
> That's shit, but I guess not unexpected, hard to claim the OP was > speeding.
TOG will just point to the very minor damage on the bike and say: "Does that look like anything other than a very low-speed impact?"
> Adrian wrote: >> "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding >> much >> like they were saying:
>>> I'm adamant that I am allowed to ride between completely stationary >>> traffic
>> Highway Code rule 88 includes...
>> "Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep >> your speed low."
>>> and that you aren't allowed to get out of your car and go walkabout on >>> the M25 just because you feel like it.
>> Highway Code rule 271 says...
>> "You MUST NOT pick up or set down anyone, or walk on a motorway, except >> in an emergency. [Laws RTRA sect 17 & MT(E&W)R reg 15]"
> That seems pretty un-equivocal.
Unless they claim an accident that completely stops the motorway counts as an emergency. I'd have thought that was enough to introduce sufficient doubt.
Scraggy <scra...@abuseisgoodforyou.org.be> wrote: > Adrian wrote: > .
>> Highway Code rule 271 says...
>> "You MUST NOT pick up or set down anyone, or walk on a motorway, >> except in an emergency. [Laws RTRA sect 17 & MT(E&W)R reg 15]"
> Official warnings to; > ToG > Teh Doctor > Ogden > Hog > and others.
I was thinking that. When the traffic has been stationary a long time people would need to leave the vehicle to (for instance) pee. I expect there is some provision somewhere. I think opening the door without due care is the key aspect. Fingers crossed plod prosecutes.
On 9 July, 12:24, "Hog" <hogS...@freenetCHIPS.co.uk> wrote:
> I was thinking that. When the traffic has been stationary a long time > people would need to leave the vehicle to (for instance) pee. I expect > there is some provision somewhere. I think opening the door without due > care is the key aspect. Fingers crossed plod prosecutes.
Plod won't. But I reckon it would be enough for my insco. And it would certainly be enough for my nasty bastard lawyer.
On 9 July, 12:21, "Andrew998" <andrew.r...@nospam.inchhosting.com> wrote:
> >> Highway Code rule 271 says...
> >> "You MUST NOT pick up or set down anyone, or walk on a motorway, except > >> in an emergency. [Laws RTRA sect 17 & MT(E&W)R reg 15]"
> > That seems pretty un-equivocal.
> Unless they claim an accident that completely stops the motorway counts as > an emergency. I'd have thought that was enough to introduce sufficient > doubt.
I don't think an accident that happens to someone else, a quarter of a mile away, and a short wait for Plod to move the vehicles to the hard shoulder, counts as an emergency sufficient to justiyf going walkabout. YMMV etc.
> "Catman" <cat...@rustcuore-sportivo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:h34esj$5cb$1@news.eternal-september.org... >> Adrian wrote: >>> "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding >>> much >>> like they were saying:
>>>> I'm adamant that I am allowed to ride between completely stationary >>>> traffic
>>> Highway Code rule 88 includes...
>>> "Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and >>> keep your speed low."
>>>> and that you aren't allowed to get out of your car and go walkabout >>>> on the M25 just because you feel like it.
>>> Highway Code rule 271 says...
>>> "You MUST NOT pick up or set down anyone, or walk on a motorway, >>> except in an emergency. [Laws RTRA sect 17 & MT(E&W)R reg 15]"
>> That seems pretty un-equivocal.
> Unless they claim an accident that completely stops the motorway counts > as an emergency. I'd have thought that was enough to introduce > sufficient doubt.
Personally I wouldn't. Every time I've ever been able to see, the bill have been telling people to get back in their cars under these circumstances.
Also: The motorway hadn't been completely stopped. Bike traffic was mostly un-affected ;)
>>> "You MUST NOT pick up or set down anyone, or walk on a motorway, >>> except in an emergency. [Laws RTRA sect 17 & MT(E&W)R reg 15]" >> Official warnings to; >> ToG >> Teh Doctor >> Ogden >> Hog >> and others.
> I was thinking that. When the traffic has been stationary a long time > people would need to leave the vehicle to (for instance) pee. I expect > there is some provision somewhere. I think opening the door without due > care is the key aspect. Fingers crossed plod prosecutes.
> On 9 July, 12:21, "Andrew998" <andrew.r...@nospam.inchhosting.com> > wrote:
>> >> Highway Code rule 271 says...
>> >> "You MUST NOT pick up or set down anyone, or walk on a motorway, >> >> except >> >> in an emergency. [Laws RTRA sect 17 & MT(E&W)R reg 15]"
>> > That seems pretty un-equivocal.
>> Unless they claim an accident that completely stops the motorway counts >> as >> an emergency. I'd have thought that was enough to introduce sufficient >> doubt.
> I don't think an accident that happens to someone else, a quarter of a > mile away, and a short wait for Plod to move the vehicles to the hard > shoulder, counts as an emergency sufficient to justiyf going > walkabout. YMMV etc.
I don't either. My point was that the claim would introduce enough doubt for plod to walk away from it (they need little enough excuse at the best of times).
>>>> "You MUST NOT pick up or set down anyone, or walk on a motorway, >>>> except in an emergency. [Laws RTRA sect 17 & MT(E&W)R reg 15]" >>> Official warnings to; >>> ToG >>> Teh Doctor >>> Ogden >>> Hog >>> and others.
>> I was thinking that. When the traffic has been stationary a long >> time people would need to leave the vehicle to (for instance) pee. I >> expect there is some provision somewhere. I think opening the >> door without due care is the key aspect. Fingers crossed plod >> prosecutes.
|
